Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216634 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71608 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>So are you implying that if science didn't tell you that you existed, you would be in doubt?

I must say...you are dedicated.
LOL.:-()

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71609 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist, but I'm not someone who believes that there is no deity.
I simply lack theistic belief.
An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.
You don't need to practice any religion to believe there is a God.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71610 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds improbable to me. I doubt the word was coined to refute scripture. Personally, I don't see the idea as being very essential to evolutionary theory. Mutation occurs and is passed on at the individual level, period!

The idea of a "macro" evolutionary strategy is flawed. It's like saying that the predecessors of birds decided to take several steps to become birds. That doesn't happen. What does happen is that environmental conditions occur that allow a species to bridge a gap between their old niche and a new one. Without those conditions, no birds would happen.

I don't know if it's your interpretation or the logic that is flawed, but I won't defend it.
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71611 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>I have. None of those can be identified as unambiguous prophecies that aren't either (1) twisted to fit a scenario or (2) made into a self-fulfilling prophecy.(Or the ones that are flat-out wrong.)

Langoliers wrote, "Look at the dating method BC "Before Christ" AD "in the year of our Lord""

You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?

By the way, should we conclude that people believe that Thor and Woden and the other Norse gods were real because we have days named Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday?

Heck, even Jews that don't use "BC" and "AD" have no problem in using those words to refer to those days of the week.
LOL really!

"You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?"

Why do you think science is switching to those dating system? Think hard now.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71612 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>Then please explain how according to the bible, we were made from dust?
No need you can look it up if you don't already know. I don't play those games.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71613 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>I'm an atheist, but I'm not someone who believes that there is no deity.

I simply lack theistic belief.

An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.
Look up the word agnostic.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71614 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
You keep referring to a definition that is not accurate.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mac...

So you don't agree to the fact there was increase in brain size in mammals, which is an example of macro-evolution?

Although I have questions about major transitions (origin of higher-level phyla) in species.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71615 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No need you can look it up if you don't already know. I don't play those games.
I'm not playing games, I want answers. Because if there was one, you would be posting them by now, wouldn't you?

The bible actually tells you that and Science proves that and yet you still don't know?

Hint: We are literally made of star dust.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71616 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
So you're an agnostic atheist?
Correct.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71617 Jan 21, 2013
I'm an atheist, but I'm not someone who believes that there is no deity.
I simply lack theistic belief.
An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.
Cybele wrote:
You don't need to practice any religion to believe there is a God.
I didn't make any references to religious practice.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71618 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?"
Why do you think science is switching to those dating system?
Because science is not making a claim in favor of any particular religion.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71619 Jan 21, 2013
An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.
Langoliers wrote:
Look up the word agnostic.
Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not a claim about belief.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#71620 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
That's not true at all. There have been billions of humans that have lived on earth and we only have a few thousand or so fossilized humanoid remains. Fossilization is a very rare thing and we have no fool proof method of locating them.

In Darwin's lifetime there were only a very few fossilized remains found. He noted in his writing that Africa would be the logical place to find human remains. In the early 1900's we started to find lots of fossils in Africa because of his intuition.

Since that time we have found proof that humans did evolve there in Africa...both archaeological and DNA converged, modern humans are first found in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Try all you want, but evolution is true and will stand.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71621 Jan 21, 2013
Dragons are real. They are in control. lol

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#71622 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Dragons are real. They are in control. lol
I have one for a pet...he lives in my tool shed..:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#71623 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Atheist have such a hard time with definition of such easy words.
Here let me help you out.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈnäs-tik,əg -\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Religion
noun
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Faith
noun
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
There that should help you out.
Yeah, you believe in nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71624 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL really!
"You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?"
Why do you think science is switching to those dating system? Think hard now.
International uniformity, that is why. Only a small portion of the world used AD and BC.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#71625 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted earlier by derek4
Challenging Darwin's Myths
Edited. Content removed for space.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm
Survival of the fittest is an antiquated and not wholely accurate phrase. It has never actually described biological evolution and I am surprised to see it still bandied about. Of course it is generally in more uneducated quarters that one finds the perpetuation of these sorts of things. It does have the "might makes right" quality that lends itself well to castigating that which one doesn't like. Perhaps that is why it is still in vogue amongst the anachronistic.

I see that others have pointed out some of the shortcommings of this rehashed attack reported above.

I find it most interesting that so many have the willfull ignorance to claim, despite 150 years of research and an ever growing body of evidence, that there is no evidence to support evolution. That they do this in favor of a creator or designer for which there is no evidence what so ever, is more interesting.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#71626 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not playing games, I want answers. Because if there was one, you would be posting them by now, wouldn't you?
The bible actually tells you that and Science proves that and yet you still don't know?
Hint: We are literally made of star dust.
I find myself reluctant to post a response, because so often it seems when I do, I come off sounding like an attack. However, your point poses questions for which I would gladly receive your answers.

For instance. Of what significance is this star dust have on life? I mean to say, it sounds sort of romantic and other worldly, but does it make a difference?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#71627 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
We have a continuum of change from

Austropithecus afarensis, through sediba, through H Habilis, Erectus, Heidelburgensis, archaic Sapiens, to modern Sapiens.

These merge so well that often placement of new finds is hotly contested as to which partition it belongs to. This is exactly what you are claiming never happens. There are really no gaps left.

Then you have OPPOSING camps of creationists, arguing with EACH OTHER as to whether Archeopteryx was really a bird, or was really a dinosaur.

Hilarious! That is EXACTLY the kind of argument that only exists among those faced with the impossible - trying to force convergent forms into the "eternally separate" boxes they imagine must be there.

The truth is, Archie (and 30+ other bird/dino intermediate species) demonstrate exactly what evolution predicted. That is:

Divergence with modern forms as you go back in time.

Convergence with contemporary forms (i.e. of the same period).

We see it with dogs and cats.
We see it with hominids and apes.
We see it with mammals and reptiles.
We see it with birds and therapod dinosaurs.
We even see it with amphibians and lobe-finned fish.
Early dinos and archosaurs.
Wherever we look.

Its a fractal pattern repeating itself on ever larger scales, precisely following the dictates of the nested hierarchy.

And thats just vertebrates.

We see it in plants, in insects, in pretty much every thing.

The SAME nested hierarchy is independently confirmed by comparison of the non-functional variations in pseudogenes, unbiquitous proteins, and ERVs across species. Confirmed, conformed, and yet again confirmed.

Slam dunk, end of story. Evolution happened.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Two words only please! (Aug '08) 8 min Mr_FX 40,838
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 11 min Mr_FX 1,574
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 21 min Sam 67,105
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 31 min SweLL GirL 15,210
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 33 min SweLL GirL 5,317
Tell me a TRUTH (Dec '12) 35 min liam cul8r 1,187
GMGMike's Bar And Grill (Jan '10) 41 min liam cul8r 20,473
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Lucy the First 10,569
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 1 hr Emerald 49
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Lucy the First 206,934
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 3 hr freedom2016 984
More from around the web